State and Not-For-Profit delivery of species conservation.
Cost utility analysis of multiple-species projects.
S. E. Vesey
Lincoln University, New Zealand
R. Cullen
Lincoln University, New Zealand
K.F.D. Hughey
Lincoln University, New Zealand
Paper presented at the 2008 NZARES Conference
Tahuna Conference Centre – Nelson, New Zealand. August 28-29, 2008.
Copyright by author(s). Readers may make copies of this document for non-commercial
purposes only, provided that this copyright notice appears on all such copies.
State and Not-For-Profit delivery of species conservation. Cost
utility analysis of multiple-species projects.
S. E. Vesey, R. Cullen, K.F.D. Hughey
Lincoln University
New Zealand
Abstract
Conservation of species is challenging, and there is continuing interest in finding more
effective means to achieve conservation goals. State provision of conservation occurs in many
countries, alongside a growing range of alternative providers including Not For Profit
organisations and the private sector. Few studies have compared the effectiveness and
efficiency of State provision against Not For Profit or private sector provision. This research
assesses the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multiple-species projects in regard to the
conservation of threatened and endangered species using a cost-utility analysis. Three State
managed projects, three Not For Profit managed projects and one project managed by the
State yet funded privately, were evaluated. All of the Not For Profit managed projects were
enclosed by predator-proof fences, while the other projects relied on natural barriers and/or
intensive predator control methods. Results indicate that State managed multiple-species
projects are both more effective and cost-effective than those projects managed by Not For
Profits. While the Not For Profit managed projects are not so effective in improving national
population totals, they are essential for ensuring regional biodiversity of threatened and
endangered species. The objectives set by the projects appear to have a significant impact on
their outputs. A number of recommendations are made for improving conservation efforts in
the future. Most importantly, the development of a threatened and endangered species
database to be contributed to by all conservation project providers. The importance of
standardised reporting techniques is highlighted to allow comparisons both over time and
between projects.
Keywords: State provision, Not For Profit, multiple-species, cost-utility analysis.
1
Introduction
Threatened species recovery is expensive, and State conservation managers are increasingly
faced with a mounting list of tasks and often strictly limited budgets. In such circumstances it
is important to ask if alternative conservation providers are more effective and efficient in
meeting conservation needs. Evaluation is essential to answer that question. In the past, the
majority of evaluation attention has been focused on developing, evaluating and prioritising
single-species projects. Multiple-species projects however, are an area to which little attention
has been paid by scientists and evaluators. As their popularity with conservation managers
grows and there is pressure of limited finances, it is important that more research is carried
out into the effectiveness of multiple species projects. The lure of these projects is the
possibility of achieving economies of scope; the belief being that the cost per species is lower
when managed this way than if managed as a series of single species projects. Nicholson and
Possingham (2006) suggest it is likely that a multiple-species framework will be subject to
many of the same limitations as a single-species project, yet the greatest benefit is the ability
to measure conservation success in a way that is readily understood.
It is important to determine if conservation projects have been conducted in the most costeffective way. In this paper we examine whether State managed and resourced multiplespecies projects in New Zealand are more successful than those managed and resourced by
Not For Profits (also referred to as trusts ), or projects managed by the State yet resourced by
private business. This study is consistent with the call by Green and Clarkson (2006) for cost
effectiveness analysis of conservation projects to be undertaken, and with the New Zealand
Department of Conservation (DoC) 2007-2010 Statement of Intent which argues that to
measure progress in protection and restoration DoC need to monitor change over time, to
estimate the difference made by the actions of management agencies and estimate net
achievement (Department of Conservation, 2007).
2
Evaluation of species conservation
Conservation management is becoming increasingly reliant on information from a number of
disciplines. These include biology, conservation ecology, economics, political science and
sociology (Hughey, Cullen, & Moran, 2003). Hughey et al. (2003) identified a number of
examples where different methods for assessing conservation management have been used.
These methods include expenditure analysis (Metrick & Weitzman, 1998), opportunity cost
analysis (Main, Roka, & Noss, 1999), diminishing marginal productivity (Drechsler &
Watzold, 2001), decision analysis (Guikema & Milke, 2002), and cost-effective indices
(Macmillan, Harley, & Morrison, 1998; Moran, Pearce, & Wendelaar, 1996). However, these
approaches cannot readily be used to assess both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. There
are three key approaches used for evaluating projects; cost-benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness
analysis and cost-utility analysis. While the approaches are essentially economics-based, other
disciplines such as those previously mentioned are used to collect the data required.
First, cost-benefit analysis (CBA) weighs up costs against the benefits of a project. This
analysis relies on measurement applying monetary (and sometimes non-monetary) units to the
costs and benefits. The second approach, cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), is often used
when the decision-maker has a limited budget. Biophysical data is required for each
alternative being evaluated and the costs are generally measured in monetary units (Hughey et
al., 2003). The final approach is cost-utility analysis (CUA). This approach measures output
by way of utility (change that occurs in a species status). The key advantage of CUA over
CEA is it can cope with varying quality outputs (so different species or projects may be
compared). So long as conservation and management costs are efficiently recorded, this
method imposes few data demands.
CUA was first used as a means of assessing health care activities (Drummond, Sculpher,
Torrance, O'Brien, & Stoddart, 2005). This approach considers the quality of the health
3
outcome which may be produced by a particular procedure or programme, or forgone if it
does not take place. CUA has been applied to a number of conservation projects. Cullen,
Fairburn and Hughey (1999) adapted the method so that COPYs (Conservation Output
Protection Years) could be measured and cost/COPY calculated. CUA is an effective method
for evaluating programs or projects that are trying to achieve different results (for example
assessing the cost-effectiveness of different management methods, or a range of species) and
it may provide important information on the productivity of recovery projects (Cullen,
Fairburn, & Hughey, 2001). This method of assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness
of projects was first applied to single-species projects and then in Cullen, Moran and Hughey
(2005), to multiple-species projects. In the latter paper, CUA and COPY were used to
compare the effectiveness of three offshore islands against three mainland islands. A potential
weakness of CUA is that in this context it relies upon expert assessments and experts may
have limited information to make an assessment, or alternatively may provide biased
responses.
Methods
While every effort was made to apply the techniques used in Cullen et al. (2005), new
methods were needed in order to obtain sufficient information to create robust results.
Research assumptions that need to be noted are: all of the expenditure made by each project
ultimately contributes to species recovery efforts and, only the impact of the project on
threatened and endangered species is being assessed. Also it should be noted that the impact
of the project on the national status of a species is assessed, as opposed to the impact on the
regional or local population of a species.
The term multiple-species project is used in this study as an umbrella term encompassing
mainland islands, Operation Ark (multiple-species and multiple-site) and non-government
wildlife/bird sanctuaries (which typically are also mainland islands). The common feature of
4
these projects is that they are designed for the conservation of a number of threatened or
endangered species.
Creating mainland islands allows for areas of land to be subjected to intensive pest control
and re-vegetation to provide a safe and natural habitat for those species at risk. Introduced
pests (mainly mammalian predators) have played a substantial role in the decline of many
native and endemic species in New Zealand (DoC and MfE 2000).
Extensive and continuous monitoring is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the mainland
island as well as the success of new methods of predator control. This cycle describes the
management approach to many mainland islands (research by management). In addition to the
monitoring of the mainland island sites, non-treatment sites nearby are often monitored to
collate information about test versus non-test sites (Gundry, 2001).
In total, seven projects from across New Zealand were chosen for evaluation (Figure 1).
These represent a range of multiple-species projects in terms of habitat, age of project and
management approaches; however with the exception of one site, the projects are
predominantly native forest habitats. Operation Ark includes Hurunui as one of its ten sites
and the contribution of Hurunui is assessed both individually, and as part of Operation Ark.
Table 1 illustrates the different characteristics of each project. In particular these sites reflect a
division between State and Not For Profit management. The former are heavily reliant on the
suppression of predator or competitor numbers, and the latter on fenced sanctuaries. State
provided conservation is taxpayer funded, but Not For Profits have a range of funding
sources. All projects have clearly defined goals and objectives. The extent of these goals and
objectives ranges from the easily achievable within the foreseeable future to restoring the
vegetation to its pre-human state.
5
Figure 1: Location of project sites. (Note: Operation Ark has a number of sites across
the South Island)
Maungatautari
Bushy Park
Karori
Rotoiti
Hurunui
Project River Recovery
Operation Ark sites
6
Table 1: Characteristics of the multiple-species projects.
Project
Bushy Park
Karori
Maungatautari
Size
98 ha
252 ha
3,363 ha
Location
Wanganui
Urban Wellington
Cambridge
Established
1994
Northern rata-mixed
podocarp rainforest
1997
2003
Forested volcanic
cone
Maungatautari
Ecological Island
Trust
Maungatautari
Ecological Island
Trust membership,
grants
Ecosystem type
Managed
Funded
Fenced/ natural
Cost of predator
proof fence
(Scofield, Cullen,
& Wang, 2008)
Number of T+E
species Present
Number of T+E
species
producing COPY
Bushy Park Trust
Native forest
Karori Wildlife
Sanctuary Trust (Inc.)
Bushy Park Trust
membership, Save
the Kiwi Foundation,
Sponsor a Kiwi
4.7 km perimeter
fence, 750m
secondary fence
Karori Wildlife
Sanctuary Trust
membership,
sponsors, grants
8.7 km perimeter fence
47 km perimeter
fence
$50,000
($10,638 per km)
$2,200,000
($252,874 per km)
$14,000,000
($297,872 per km)
Project River
Recovery
Rotoiti
Operation Ark
12,000 ha
North
Canterbury
1995
Beech
forest
>33,000 ha
Twizel/
Mackenzie Basin
1991
5,000 ha
Nelson Lakes
National Park
1995
Braided rivers
Beech forest
208,579 ha
South Island
10 different sites
2004
Predominately
Beech forest
DoC
DoC
DoC
DoC
DoC
Meridian Energy
DoC
DoC
Natural
Predominately
natural
Natural
Natural
Hurunui
3
18
5
6
33
6
5
2
8
1
2
5
0
3
7
Data collection and evaluation
The initial methods used for data collection followed Cullen et al. (2005) and enables
comparisons to be made to that study. An important requirement of the CUA technique is the
use of an appropriate scale for measuring the conservation status of species. The DoC Threat
Classification System (Hitchmough, Bull, & Cromarty, 2007) is somewhat linked to the
IUCN (2001) red list, yet also allows for unique characteristics of conservation in New
Zealand such as; the small habitat area of some species, the small carrying capacity of those
habitats and the naturally low population numbers of some species (Cullen et al., 2005).
Categories on the Threat Classification System were combined with a cardinal scale to create
a continuum to describe species status (Table 2).
Table 2: Conservation status continuum (adapted from Cullen et al. (2005)).
Abbreviation
Threat category
NT
S
RR
GD
SD
NV
NE
E
Not threatened
At risk-sparse
At risk-range restricted
Chronically threatened-gradual decline
Chronically threatened-serious decline
Acutely threatened-nationally vulnerable
Acutely threatened-nationally critical
Extinct
Range on continuum
0.99-1.00
0.95-0.98
0.87-0.94
0.76-0.86
0.62-0.75
0.45-0.61
0.24-0.44
0.00
Structured interviews held at project managers work places were used as the initial means of
data collection. These managers work with the species and process data concerning their
projects on a daily basis and can potentially provide faster and more detailed explanations of
dynamics in their ecosystem than can be gathered from reports, texts or even modelling
systems (Ferraro & Pattanayak, 2006). A poor response to requests for data was received,
with the most common reasons for this being time and budget constraints. To obtain further
data a new methodology was developed. Raw data was collected from annual reports,
newsletter, updates posted on the various Trusts websites and bird population estimates from
8
Heather & Robertson (2005), along with the opinions of experts or Recovery Team Leaders
for each species in question. While this process consumed more time than simply meeting
with an individual, the data that was collected has the added strength that it is published
material.
A standardised approach was used to calculate expenditure for each of the seven projects. In
order to maintain comparability between DoC and privately managed projects, organisation
overheads have been included. In some cases, expenditure data was not available for the
duration of the projects (likely due to poor record keeping in the past). In these instances the
project life has been taken from the first year of available data. The annual expenditure
values for each conservation project were all converted into $2007 (second quarter) using
Statistics New Zealand s CPI indices and the Reserve Bank s CPI Inflation Calculator
(http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/inflationcalculator/showcalculator.do). Comparison of results with
Cullen et al. (2005) occurred after dollar values from that study were converted to $2007.
The DoC managed projects are located on state owned land and legislation means the land is
unable to be used for other activities; hence no opportunity costs may be attributed to these
projects (Cullen et al., 2005). While there may be the possibility of including opportunity
costs for the trust managed conservation projects, this has not been explored further and hence
has not been included in the cost calculations.
The unit of measurement for this analysis is COPY. The conservation status values for each
species with and without the projects are crucial to the calculation of the COPY values.
The contribution of a particular project to the conservation status of a threatened species
found at its site is measured using the following method:
COPYi =
where:
t
(Sitw
Sitw/o)
Sitw
= species i conservation status in year t with management w
Sitw/o
= species i conservation status in year t without management w/o
9
For multiple species projects, the numbers of COPY calculated for each species are added
together to give the total output from the particular conservation project.
Total Output =
i COPYi
A second measure of the success of the conservation project is the distance between a species
with project and without project status score in the final year of the study period (Cullen et
al., 2005). This term is referred to as Gain.
Gaini = (Sifw Sifw/o)
where:
Sifw
= species i conservation status in year f with management w
Sifw/o
= species i conservation status in year f without management w/o
f
= final year of study period
Because these projects run over several years, present values of COPY are calculated. A zero
discount rate was used when calculating the initial numbers of COPY, however these were
then discounted using rates of 3%, 6% and 10%. The 6% discount rate was used for analysis
purposes as it approximates the cost of borrowing by the New Zealand Government. The
discounted present value of costs for each project was divided by the discounted present value
of each project s COPY in order to calculate a metric (cost/COPY), which could be compared
between projects. As the age of the projects available varied between 3 and 16 years,
annualised costs were calculated so fair comparisons could be made. Annualised costs spread
the present value (using 6% discount rate) of costs across the project s life, creating a value
that includes capital and interest. These costs were divided by the number of hectares each
conservation project protected to create another metric for comparison (cost/hectare).
Results
A range of values were calculated for each of the conservation projects.
10
Table 3 shows the conservation status for each of the threatened and endangered species that
produced COPY, as well as an estimate of the percentage of each species population present
in 2007. Of the twenty different species which recorded a positive COPY, only three have
changed classification status between the 2002 and 2005 Classification System Lists as noted
by (Hitchmough et al., 2007). The little spotted kiwi improved between the two publications,
while the orange-fronted parakeet and wrybill plover both worsened. It is important to note
that the species listed in Table 3 are not the only threatened and endangered species present
for each project, however they are the only ones which have produced COPY during the study
period.
Of the seven projects, the Hurunui Mainland Island has produced the greatest COPY (2.44),
while two other DoC managed projects (Operation Ark and Project River Recovery) followed
with 0.89 and 0.62 respectively (Table 3). The high COPY produced by Operation Ark
reflects the large COPY produced for orange-fronted parakeets by the Hurunui site. Karori
was the only Not For Profit managed site which generated a noticeable amount of COPY.
With the exception of Operation Ark, each of these sites producing significant amounts of
COPY has operated for 10 years or more.
Gain is also reported in Table 3. While the top four scoring projects are the same as those for
COPY, the order is quite different. Operation Ark, with only 3 years of data, ranked highest
on Gain (0.16) closely followed by Karori. Hurunui and Project River Recovery both scored a
Gain of 0.1. The final year Gain for Karori is likely to have been bolstered by recent
relocations of a number of threatened and endangered species into the Sanctuary.
11
Table 3: Gain and COPY calculated for each project.
Conservation
status
Project and Species
Bushy Park
NI Brown Kiwi (Apteryx mantelli)
NI Saddleback (Philesturnus carunculatus rufusater)
Karori
Northern Tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus)
Brown teal (Anas chlorotis)
Little Spotted Kiwi (Apteryx owenii)
NI Kaka (Nestor meridionalis septentrionalis)
Maud Island Frog (Leiopelma pakeka)
NI Saddleback (Philesturnus carunculatus rufusater)
Stitchbird (Notiomystis cincta)
Cook Strait Giant Weta (Deinacrida rugosa)
Maungatautari
Takahe (Porphyrio hochstetteri)
Hurunui
Yellowhead (Mohoua ochrocephala)
Orange-fronted Parakeet (Cyanorhamphus malherbi)
Project River Recovery
Black Stilt (Himantopus novaezelandiae)
Wrybill Plover (Anarhynchus frontalis)
Robust Grasshopper (Brachaspis robustus)
Pygmy Clubrush (Isolepis basilaris)
Dwarf Woodrush (Luzula celata)
Rotoiti
COPY was not produced for any species
Operation Ark
Yellowhead (Mohoua ochrocephala)
Blue duck (Hymenolaimus malachorhynchos)
Orange-fronted Parakeet (Cyanorhamphus malherbi)
Long-tailed bat (Chalinolobus tuberculata)
Short-tailed bat (Mystacina tuberculata tuberculata)
2002
2005
Estimated
% of total
Population
in project
SD
RR
SD
RR
<1
1
S
NE
SD
NE
NE
RR
RR
S
NE
RR
NE
NE
RR
NE
RR
1
<1
7
1
<1
<1
1
1
NC
NC
<1
NE
NE
NE
NC
<1
100
NC
SD
NE
SD
SD
NC
NV
NE
SD
SD
100
10
100
10
40
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NC
NE
NE
90
4
100
unknown
unknown
Gain
(2007)
COPY
0.01
0.01
0
0.14
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.06
0
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.5
0.02
0.17
0.06
0.04
0.12
0.01
0.06
0.02
0.03
0.03
2.44
0.4
2.04
0.62
0.24
0.25
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.00
0.16
0.89
0.05
0.15
0.06
0.09
0.05
0.65
not enough data
not enough data
Table 4 reports present value (PV) of the total costs and PV of COPY for each of the projects
using four discount rates. As there are differing project lengths (resulting from differing start
years and data availability), annualised costs have been calculated in Table 5. Many of the
projects expenditure varied annually so the values for annualised costs provide a way to
compare typical expenditure for each project. There was a range of approximately $2 million
($2,310,230-$244,889) for annualised costs, with the costs for Operation Ark almost twice
those of the next largest, Karori.
12
Table 4: Costs and cost effectiveness of projects.
Project
Discount rates (%)
3
6
0
Bushy Park
Present value of costs
PV of COPY
PV of costs per PV of COPY
Karori
Present value of costs
PV of COPY
PV of costs per PV of COPY
Maungatautari
Present value of costs
PV of COPY
PV of costs per PV of COPY
Hurunui
Present value of costs
PV of COPY
PV of costs per PV of COPY
Rotoiti
Present value of costs
PV of COPY
PV of costs per PV of COPY
Project River Recovery
Present value of costs
PV of COPY
PV of costs per PV of COPY
Operation Ark
Present value of costs
PV of COPY
PV of costs per PV of COPY
10
$ 2,640,705
0.04
$ 66,017,619
$ 2,205,503
0.03
$ 69,311,644
$ 1,861,660
0.03
$ 73,022,745
$ 1,508,660
0.02
$ 78,702,242
$ 14,785,968
0.42
$ 35,204,686
$ 11,968,214
0.32
$ 37,915,480
$ 9,811,842
0.24
$ 40,954,149
$ 7,670,546
0.17
$ 45,582,070
$ 3,020,073
0.03
$ 100,669,104
$ 2,850,651
0.03
$ 105,888,888
$ 2,697,437
0.02
$ 111,289,287
$ 2,514,948
0.02
$ 118,778,556
$ 3,271,711
2.44
$ 1,340,865
$ 2,700,849
2.06
$ 1,312,902
$ 2,259,495
1.76
$ 1,283,434
$ 1,816,097
1.46
$ 1,242,912
$ 4,347,519
0
undefined
$ 3,892,489
0
undefined
$ 3,516,638
0
undefined
$ 3,109,963
0
undefined
$ 8,129,885
0.62
$ 13,112,718
$ 6,662,995
0.45
$ 14,961,611
$ 5,592,078
0.33
$ 17,151,343
$ 4,572,420
0.22
$ 20,657,049
$ 6,554,258
0.92
$ 7,124,193
$ 6,357,371
0.89
$ 7,123,242
$ 6,175,287
0.87
$ 7,124,209
$ 5,952,942
0.84
$ 7,128,213
The annualised costs for each project were divided by the number of hectares in each site to
find how much is spent per unit area. This shows a reverse of the two extremes recorded for
annualised costs. Bushy Park was the second most expensive project, while the large area
managed by Operation Ark resulted in it being the lowest cost per hectare. The Not For Profit
managed and variously funded conservation projects were all higher cost per hectare than the
other four projects. Project River Recovery however, is DoC managed yet privately funded
and was the second lowest cost/hectare project.
13
Table 5: Summary of annualised costs for each project (n= number of years of data).
Project
Bushy Park (n=10)
Karori (n=12)
Maungatautari (n=5)
Hurunui (n=12)
Rotoiti (n=10)
Project River
Recovery (n=16)
Operation Ark (n=3)
Area (ha)
98
252
3363
12000
5000
Annualised costs
$ 252,940
$ 1,170,327
$ 641,893
$ 269,506
$ 477,799
Annualised costs/ha
$ 2,581.02
$ 4,644.15
$ 190.87
$ 22.46
$ 95.56
Cost/COPY
$ 73,022,745
$ 40,954,149
$ 111,289,287
$ 1,283,434
undefined
33000
208579
$ 553,348
$ 2,310,230
$ 16.77
$ 11.08
$ 17,151,343
$ 7,124,209
The cost per COPY ratios show that DoC managed sites are more cost effective than the Not
For Profit managed conservation projects (except for Rotoiti which did not produce any
COPY). The Not For Profit managed projects have substantially greater cost/COPY ratios.
Hurunui scored the best, producing one COPY for $1,283,434 while the least effective was
Maungatautari which cost $111,289,287. Operation Ark is the second most cost-effective
COPY producing project, with significantly lower costs than many of the projects which have
been operating for a longer time.
Finally, results from this study were compared with the results in Cullen et al. (2005) and are
reported in Table 6. Only three sites (all State managed) are common to each study; Hurunui,
Rotoiti and Project River Recovery. Rotoiti did not produce any COPY in either study, and
while the annualised costs increased marginally during the different time period, the costs per
hectare are one quarter of those in the previous study. This large change may be due to the
increase in project size between studies (825ha to 5000ha). Unlike Rotoiti, the other two sites
have increased COPY between the studies, although the Gain decreased. The Gain for
Hurunui was half of the value in 2002 while the COPY produced almost doubled (Table 6).
The amount of money spent per hectare has decreased slightly, possibly reflecting the
increased understanding of effective predator control techniques. Despite these noticeable
improvements the annualised costs have increased and there has only been marginal change in
14
the cost of producing COPY. Project River Recovery s annualised costs decreased very
slightly between studies, possibly reflecting the period of time it has been operating (16
years). The costs per hectare ratio also fell, to over a third of the initial study (Table 6). As
with Rotoiti, it is likely this can be attributed to the fact the area managed by Project River
Recovery tripled during this period.
Table 6: Comparison of values calculated by Cullen et al. (2005) and this study. (A 6%
discount rate has been applied).
Project
Hurunui
Area managed (ha)
Gain
COPY
Present value of costs
Annualised costs
Cost/hectare
Cost/COPY
Project River
Recovery
Area managed (ha)
Gain
COPY
Present value of costs
Annualised costs
Cost/hectare
Cost/COPY
Rotoiti
Area managed (ha)
Gain
COPY
Present value of costs
Annualised costs
Cost/hectare
Cost/COPY
2002
Cullen et al. (2005)
2007
This study
12,000
0.2
1.28
$973,960
$180,100
$15.01
$964,659
12,000
0.1
2.44
$2,259,495
$269,506
$22.46
$1,283,434
11,000
0.12
0.45
$4,617,816
$585,507
$53.23
$16,430,099
33,000
0.1
0.62
$5,592,078
$553,348
$16.77
$17,151,343
825
0
0
$1,639,909
$333,492
$404.23
undefined
5,000
0
0
$5,592,078
$477,799
$95.56
undefined
Discussion
Table 1 shows there are marked differences between the projects; from those producing zero
COPY to 2.44 COPY. Reasons for these differences may include the proportion of the total
species population found in each project, the threat classification of species (how at risk they
are), the duration of the project and the ease with which species can be protected and
15
relocated. COPY is calculated by assessing the impact of a project on the national population
of each species. When calculated like this, the outputs are likely to be much smaller than if
their impact on the regional population was being assessed. For example; Hurunui and Project
River Recovery score high COPY values as they are the only areas of New Zealand where
particular species are found. Hurunui has the largest and most significant population of
orange-fronted parakeet while Project River Recovery has the only breeding populations of
black stilt and robust grasshopper. On the other hand, Maungatautari is home to two takahe.
These two non-breeding birds reflect only a small percentage of the national population of
approximately 250 (Heather & Robertson, 2005), however they are the only takahe in the
Waikato region and so are regionally significant. This raises the question; where should
conservation efforts be focused
on protecting the overall population by potentially confining
species to safe locations (such as offshore islands), or risking a lower total population
through keeping species where they have naturally existed in the past.
The allocation of expenditure appears to impact the cost-effectiveness of projects. The Not
For Profit managed and funded conservation projects were consistently amongst the least
cost-effective based on annualised costs, costs/hectare and costs/COPY (Table 5). The most
obvious difference between the Not For Profit and DoC managed sites is the presence of
predator-proof boundary fences on the former. These fences are relatively expensive (Table 1)
averaging a cost of $187,128 per km across the three included in this study. Approximately
one quarter of the mainland conservation projects listed on the Sanctuaries of New Zealand
website (www.sanctuariesnz.org) have built or are in the process of building predator-proof
boundary fences. While some of these projects may be supported by DoC, the majority are
managed by community groups or trusts. Alternatively, some Not For Profit managed projects
take advantage of natural barriers such as peninsulas to minimise the cost involved in
managing boundaries from reinvasion by predators and pests. The effectiveness of projects
16
such as Hurunui, Project River Recovery and Operation Ark suggest that expensive fences
may not be essential for a successful conservation project. The money invested in fences
could have been used instead to fund efficient trapping lines throughout the project area, and
around the boundary of the property. Maungatautari is an example of this could have occurred
as it is effectively a mountain surrounded by farmland. The absence of forest and adequate
habitat for predators on surrounding property, mean the invasion rates may naturally be
minimised to an extent that the placement of trapping lines and bait stations are sufficient to
protect populations from reinvasion.
While some Not For Profit sites may have produced very little COPY, the geographically
dispersed presence of species adds more safe locations. In cases where there are only a few
populations of species this is important and should be considered, as it reduces the risk of
population wipe-out by environmental or biological factors, whereas if there are already
multiple populations of the species around New Zealand then there may be very little
conservation benefit.
There appears to be a relationship between the number of threatened and endangered species
present and the amount of COPY produced for the Not For Profit managed sites. Not For
Profit managed projects seem to be more effective when they have a large number of species
(such as Karori) whereas the most effective DoC managed projects had fewer threatened and
endangered species present (Hurunui and Operation Ark). This may reflect the differing
objectives and financial constraints of the projects. DoC projects generally have a limited
budget and so managers have to prioritise where that money is spent. Not For Profit projects
are guided by their own objectives and have more discretion over the funds they can apply to
projects. Additionally, they are able to apply for grants and support from DoC to aid species
relocations.
17
Karori was the only Not For Profit managed project which produced substantial COPY or
Gain. A clear factor distinguishing Karori from the other two Not For Profits projects is the
number of years it has been actively managing species. Karori s fence was completed in 1999
while Bushy Park and Maungatautari s were completed in 2005 and 2006 respectively. The
DoC managed projects produced higher COPY than Karori, likely as a result of not being
hindered by the building of a predator proof fence, as well as focusing on species already
present rather than relocations.
The present value of costs in Table 5 show the total expenditure by each project over the
period studied. It might be expected that the longest running project would accumulate the
greatest expenditure. This was true for two of the three highest costing projects (Karori and
Project River Recovery), however the youngest project (Operation Ark) ranked second
highest. The total area of each project greatly affects these values, possibly more so than the
project s age. The area managed by Operation Ark is six times greater than that for Project
River Recovery and over 800 times Karori s managed area.
Two of the Not For Profit projects with predator proof fences have lower total expenditure
than the majority of DoC projects (Table 4). This may reflect how the cost of the fences have
been spread across their estimated life (approximately 25 years (Scofield et al., 2008))
through depreciation, alternatively this may also be attributed to the small area they manage.
When the age of the projects is taken into consideration and annualised costs are calculated,
the most expensive projects are the Not For Profit projects (Table 5). They manage small
areas, and have expensive perimeter fences. The State projects manage much larger areas and
do not have perimeter fences.
Operation Ark is the second ranking project in terms of cost per unit of COPY and area. It is
also distinct from the other projects in that it manages 10 different sites around the South
Island rather than only one protected area. By focusing on the existing habitat sites of
18
identified species, Operation Ark has minimised the cost involved in creating replica or
suitable ecosystems to relocate the species to.
As with many conservation projects, the multiple-species projects studied predominately
protect birds, in particular flagship or charismatic species (Metrick & Weitzman, 1998).
While it is tempting to focus on these species, there is an opportunity for many, if not all of
the projects studied to introduce more species other than birds. These projects are
predominantly (and relatively) predator and pest free and have well-established vegetation
providing ideal habitat for invertebrates and lizards.
One of the study s objectives was to determine if the sites previously assessed in Cullen et al.
(2005) have improved their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness since 2002. Kerkvliet &
Langpap (2007) suggest that it may take at least six years in order to see the full effect of
investment in a threatened species project. There has been a further six years of operation
until this study providing a sufficient time period to test that proposition. The three sites
common to both studies were analysed to assess if they had become more effective or costeffective over time.
There are many factors which may have contributed to changes in effectiveness including
staff/management turnover resulting in loss of knowledge about the project, development in
understanding/technology leading to improved trapping rates for example, changes in
funding, and biological factors such as disease potentially harming a species. Additional
project-specific factors which should be considered when making the comparisons are:
Project River Recovery changed its objectives for the 2006-2012 Strategic Plan. While the
changes to the focus of the project may not be significant, it may have some impact in
allocation of resources. Rotoiti has increased its management area from 825 hectares to 5,000
hectares. Rotoiti staff suggested their productivity has increased substantially with this
increase in area as they have had little change in funding to reflect the increase (P. Gasson,
19
personal communication, 14 December 2007). Hurunui was incorporated into Operation Ark
and is managed very much as part of this programme rather than as a mainland island. Some
management aspects have been maintained, however on a much smaller scale.
While all sites have lowered their expenditure per hectare, and two have increased the COPY
produced, none of the projects have increased their cost-effectiveness in improving the
conservation status of the species present. This may indicate that it may be easy to initially
produce high COPY, but maintaining or improving this in the long run is potentially difficult
and expensive. The objectives set by each project appear to drive the success of the projects in
producing COPY. Those which have a goal of improving research and education efforts were
less successful in producing COPY (Rotoiti), whereas projects which are specifically focused
on the protection of key species, i.e., specific and measurable conservation outcomes,
concentrate their expenditure directly on the species and hence produce COPY (Hurunui and
Operation Ark).
Conclusions
There are four main sets of findings from this research. They relate to conservation
effectiveness and associated management implications, the techniques involved in evaluation,
the potential to internationalise evaluation, and to monitoring and data collection needs.
The study found that two of three State provided multiple-species projects are more costeffective than a State managed and privately funded project, and three Not For Profit projects.
State provided projects manage large areas at low cost per hectare and provide habitat for
large percentage of threatened species populations. In contrast Not For Profit projects
managed smaller areas, made large investments in fences and provided habitat for small
percentage of species populations, which often had been reintroduced to the region. In order
for Not For Profit projects to make a difference to overall species conservation they need to
either have a significant percentage of the national population, or be one of a few locations
20
where the species may be found. Not For Profit managed conservation projects major
conrtibutions to date are in ensuring species biodiversity on regional scales, providing
educational and recreational opportunities, and raising the profiles of particular species.
Green and Clarkson (2006) state that among the priorities for New Zealand conservation is to
increase actions for priority threatened species, and increased, better-focused and more
efficient pest control. Operation Ark has proven that intense, focused funding and
management approaches can be successful in improving the conservation status of species in
the short-run. These additional projects should be allocated money in addition to present
conservation funding (Norton, 2000). Operation Ark funding provides national level
supplements to the money already allocated by regional offices. In periodic mast years1 the
conservancies need to find money from other projects to meet extra predator control needs.
This approach has been successful in the short-run, buts its long run success is unclear.
For conservation projects to improve their effectiveness and cost effectiveness they must
evaluate their techniques and results, then adjust their management approach in response to
their findings. Project River Recovery writes a strategic plan every seven years, reviewing the
past period as well as making suggestions and setting objectives for the forthcoming period.
Adopting a similar approach in other conservation projects would force them to review their
relative success formally rather than relying solely on managers opinions. As well as refining
objectives and management approaches, these reports should include total or estimated
numbers of all threatened and endangered species present as well the methods used to
calculate these numbers so their accuracy may be readily assessed.
The CUA approach used by Cullen et al. (2005) can be replicated, but it can also be modified
to provide alternative means of data collection. The Cullen et al. (2005) techniques proved to
1
In beech (Nothofugus spp.) forests of the South Island of New Zealand seeding only occurs occasionally and is
referred to as masting . In a mast year the massive seed drop results in a build up of introduced herbivores
(primarily mice (Mus musculus)). This eruption is then followed by an eruption in introduced predators (mainly
stoats (Mustela erminea)). These predators then prey heavily on hole nesting bird species.
21
be relatively simple and effective only if full co-operation of project managers was available,
and this seems to be an increasingly difficult challenge. The modifications developed and
tested here mean that if needed, very little or no cooperation by managers is required. Such
evaluation may be more time consuming, but can still provide a standardised evaluation
method using data which has been sourced from audited annual accounts or published reports.
Cullen et al. (2005) suggest that because the conservation status continuum used to calculate
COPY is based on the DoC Threat Classification System Lists (which in turn are linked to the
IUCN classification system), this evaluation approach could be applied to conservation
projects internationally. Haddock, Tzanopoulous, Mitchley and Fraser (2007) used this
approach to develop a similar CUA methodology to evaluate habitat conservation. The new
data collection methods will assist international application of this evaluation approach.
There is often little reliable , readily available, and up-to-date population data for threatened
and endangered species. There are multiple records of species at different locations, but very
little about national trends and totals. The development of a national database containing
information such as national, regional and project populations would become a highly useful
resource, for researchers, conservation managers and others, nationwide. Ideally these
databases would be developed in conjunction with managers of the conservation projects.
While many projects publish strategic plans, annual reports, audited accounts, and
newsletters, they do not report the same data nor have a standardised reporting template.
While it may not be realistic to expect similar reports from Not For Profit and State
conservation projects, a standard reporting structure would allow simple, comparable and
relevant results to be relayed.
A search for greater effectiveness and improved cost effectiveness in biodiversity
conservation should not overlook State provision. Alternative provision may be less effective
22
and higher cost ways of delivering conservation outcomes. Evaluation is esssential to assess
conservation performance and CUA provides a relatively straight forward low cost way to
accomplish that. Information is essential to complete evaluations, and to effective decisionmaking. The introduction of standardised reporting formats and national databases would
enhance information availabilty, support evaluation and decision-making as well as underpin
more effective and efficient conservation performance.
Acknowledgements
Our sincere thanks to the staff members at the Department of Conservation who provided data
essential for this research. In particular Paul Gasson, Andy Grant, Richard Suggate and Chris
Woolmore for their prompt replies to questions and their support. Also, thanks to Paul
Scofield at the Canterbury Museum for his assistance.
23
References
Cullen, R., Fairburn, G. A., & Hughey, K. F. D. (1999). COPY: A new technique for
evaluation of biodiversity protection projects. Pacific Conservation Biology, 5(2),
115-123.
Cullen, R., Fairburn, G. A., & Hughey, K. F. D. (2001). Measuring the productivity of
threatened-species programs. Ecological Economics, 39(1), 53-66.
Cullen, R., Moran, E., & Hughey, K. F. D. (2005). Measuring the success and cost
effectiveness of New Zealand multiple-species projects to the conservation of
threatened species. Ecological Economics, 53(3), 311-323.
Department of Conservation. (2007). Statement of Intent 2007-2010. (C. 13 SI (07))
Department of Conservation (DoC), and Ministry for the Environment (MfE) (2000). The
New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy: our chance to turn the tide; whakakohukihukitia
te tai roroku ki te tai oranga. Wellington, Department of Conservation and Ministry
for the Environment.
Drechsler, M., & Watzold, F. (2001). The importance of economic costs in the development
of guidelines for spatial conservation management. Biological Conservation, 97(1),
51-59.
Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Torrance, G. W., O'Brien, B. J., & Stoddart, G. L. (2005).
Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes (3rd ed.). Oxford;
New York: Oxford University Press.
Ferraro, P. J., & Pattanayak, S. K. (2006). Money for nothing? A call for embirical evaluation
of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biology, 4(4), 482-488.
Green, W., & Clarkson, B. (2006). Review of the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy themes. :
Wellington New Zealand: Department of Conservation
Guikema, S., & Milke, M. (2002). Quantitative decision tools for conservation programme
planning: practice, theory and potential. Environmental Conservation, 26(03), 179189.
Gundry, S. (2001). Boundary Stream Mainland Island: teachers' educational resource.
Gisborne, New Zealand: Department of Conservation.
Haddock, J., Tzanopoulos, J., Mitchley, J., & Fraser, R. (2007). A method for evaluating
alternaive landscape management scenarios in relation to the biodiversity conservation
of habitats. Ecological Economics, 61, 277-283.
Heather, B., & Robertson, H. (2005). The field guide to the birds of New Zealand: revised
edition. Auckland: Viking.
24
Hitchmough, R. A., Bull, L., & Cromarty, P. (2007). New Zealand Threat Classification
System lists, 2005. Wellington, New Zealand: Science & Technical Publications,
Department of Conservation.
Hughey, K. F. D., Cullen, R., & Moran, E. (2003). Integrating Economics into Priority Setting
and Evaluation in Conservation Management. Conservation Biology, 17(1), 93-103.
Kerkvliet, J., & Langpap, C. (2007). Learning from endangered and threatened species
recovery programs: A case study using U.S. Endangered Species Act recovery scores.
Ecological Economics, 63(2-3), 499-510.
Macmillan, D. C., Harley, D., & Morrison, R. (1998). Cost-effectiveness analysis of
woodland ecosystem restoration. Ecological Economics, 27(3), 313-324.
Main, M. B., Roka, F. M., & Noss, R. F. (1999). Evaluating Costs of Conservation.
Conservation Biology, 13(6), 1262-1272.
Metrick, A., & Weitzman, M. L. (1998). Conflicts and choices in biodiversity preservation.
The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(3), 21.
Moran, D., Pearce, D., & Wendelaar, A. (1996). Global biodiversity priorities: A costeffectiveness index for investments. Global Environmental Change, 6(2), 103-119.
Nicholson, E., & Possingham, H. P. (2006). Objectives for Multiple-Species Conservation
Planning. Conservation Biology, 20(3), 871-881.
Norton, D. A. (2000). Mainland habitat islands: a vision for New Zealand nature
conservation. Wellington, N.Z.: Department of Conservation.
Scofield, R. P., Cullen, R., & Wang, M. (2008). Restoration and Management Theory: Are
predator proof fences the answer to New Zealand's terrestrial biodiversity crisis?
Unpublished Article.
25